Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer delivered one of his most dramatic critiques yet of President Donald Trump’s signature legislative proposal, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” warning that the sweeping Republican package would have serious consequences for millions of Americans if passed as written.

Speaking during a press conference on Capitol Hill, Schumer attempted to reframe the legislation by giving it a new nickname — the “We Are All Going To Die Act” — arguing that its provisions would severely undermine essential social programs. He claimed the bill would strip health coverage from roughly 14 million people, end food assistance for millions more, and direct the bulk of savings toward tax reductions that benefit the wealthiest households.

To emphasize his point, Schumer held up a poster with the new label and said the proposal “asks vulnerable families to sacrifice so billionaires don’t have to.”

Schumer’s Concerns Over Health and Food Programs

According to Schumer, the bill’s restructuring of federal health care subsidies would leave many low-income and elderly Americans without affordable options. He also highlighted projections that the legislation could significantly reduce Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility, a change he argued would place additional stress on families already struggling with rising costs.

Republicans have countered those claims by arguing that the bill encourages work, reduces government waste, and simplifies several outdated benefit systems. Still, Schumer maintained that the proposal represents “a series of cuts disguised as reform.”

Strong Reactions Across Social Media

Schumer’s theatrical renaming of the bill immediately ignited a flurry of online responses. Many users mocked the long-standing tradition in politics of branding opposing legislation as catastrophic or “deadly.”

Several commentators pointed out that similar warnings have accompanied a wide range of previous legislative debates, from internet regulations to budget negotiations.

One user wrote that if every “catastrophic” prediction had come true, “no one would still be alive after all the previous policy changes.” Others shared compilations of past political rhetoric suggesting that the use of exaggerated language has become a predictable part of partisan messaging.

A number of political analysts echoed that sentiment, noting that voters are increasingly skeptical of hyperbolic predictions, regardless of the source.

Ongoing Debate as Vote Approaches

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” remains one of the central policy objectives of the Trump administration, which argues that the legislation would spur growth, reduce federal spending, and modernize key benefits programs. Republican lawmakers say the bill has been mischaracterized and insist it provides incentives for work, trims unnecessary bureaucracy, and expands certain types of coverage.

Democrats, meanwhile, warn that the bill shifts too much responsibility onto states and vulnerable populations without adequate safeguards.

As negotiations continue, both sides are preparing for what is expected to be a contentious vote in the coming weeks. Public opinion is divided, and advocacy groups are ramping up efforts to influence lawmakers as the debate intensifies.

Whether Schumer’s rhetorical gambit will shift momentum remains to be seen — but the clash over the bill shows no signs of slowing down.